Southwark-wide CPZ

[first mate]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Most cars round here are used infrequently - convenience rather than utility.  Car club less convenient but much greater utility.  Therefore less cars and frees up road space where cars were once parked.  What's not to like.

One minute you seem to argue permits are so affordable meaning people won't give up their cars. In order for people to be incentivised to relinquish their cars you have to admit that permit prices will have to be hiked by quite a way then, to make them unaffordable? Which is it?
Club cars are still going to take up a part of that the freed up road space, sounds like Cllr Rose had quite big plans in that direction. So all a bit circular in a way.

 

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't know why free on-street car storage should be seen as an entitlement. It is difficult to think of any other scenario in which individuals can store large items on public land free of charge / without restriction. If I was to put a shed on the street outside my house, people wouldn't consider it remotely reasonable... but a van that never moves? If one wants to temporarily place a skip on the street, you have to pay. There are significant 'externalised' costs to car storage and use. It's right that more of those costs are internalised.

EA it's not an entitlement it is the product of years and years of societal and infrastructure change. You cannot just snap your fingers and change it all overnight which is rather what this feels like.

I also don't know if you did not see or just chose to ignore Pugwash' post above yours. There are very good reasons why sections of society rely on vehicle use and please don't, like some others on here, patronise by referring to elderly or disabled people you know who manage perfectly well on their e-bike. Great if they can but many cannot.

[Moovart]

Councillor Andy Simmons says that the borough wide CPZ consultation and decision was made in 2019.  Does anyone remember that happening. Have to say I don't recall any borough wide consultation on CPZ.

[first mate]

What's the source? That sounds most unlikely. I think we'd all remember taking part in a consultation of that nature, especially with a result that was in favour! Funny how we all remember the ED CPZ consultation which was overall not in favour.

[Moovart]

The source is Andy Simmons by email 

[Rockets]

1 hour ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

I don't know why free on-street car storage should be seen as an entitlement. It is difficult to think of any other scenario in which individuals can store large items on public land free of charge / without restriction. If I was to put a shed on the street outside my house, people wouldn't consider it remotely reasonable... but a van that never moves? If one wants to temporarily place a skip on the street, you have to pay. There are significant 'externalised' costs to car storage and use. It's right that more of those costs are internalised.

Earl, I suppose that would be because a shed is not a means by which people get around their city and country - so yes, putting one in the street would be considered quite odd. But what if the van or car does move as it is the main means for someone to get around to work or doing their job and they already pay tax and road tax?

 

And yes First Mate, many of the biggest proponents of these measures seem very confused at times as to which side of the debate they are on....Earl tried to dig up my supposed defending of SUVs (which was nothing of the sort) and you have a quick look at some their own posts and you see some like this:

 

Please don't tell me that this will mean more speed bumps?!

 

I have an old Fiesta and going over one of those bumps, even at 15 mph is uncomfortable. 

 

It seems many of them want some measures but not all, well not any that might inconvenience them personally.....;-)

 

If the council did make a decision on borough-wide CPZs in 2019 then I am amazed (not amazed) they didn't have it as one of their manifesto pledges at the time of elections. If they did decide it and kept it from the electorate then that is another matter all together and very serious.

[Moovart]

Apparently it was all in this document that comes up if you Google 

Southwark Movement Plan 2019

Not sure how extensive the consultation was. 

 

[CPR Dave]

I've found the council's report on their consultation on this movement plan, here:https://www.southwark.gov.uk/assets/attach/9429/Movement-Plan-2019-Consultation-Summary-Report-April-2019-.pdf

Some highlights:

Quote

We received a total of 1,025 responses through the online Consultation Hub, street surveys and working with the Young Advisors. We received 8 responses from our stakeholders.

 

The consultation was predominantly promoted via Southwark’s social media channels as well as the quarterly Southwark Life and email newsletter and the New Southwark Plan mailing list.

 

 

Quote

Throughout the consultation we have continuously worked with key stakeholders and existing networks to collate their views and to discuss how to continue working together. This includes meeting with cyclists, walking groups and air quality network group, attending community council meetings and others.

 

And then, the only mention of parking in the whole document comes from "Stakeholder submissions":

 

Quote

The need to reduce on street parking, implementing emission based charges and borough wide extension of controlled parking zones, with increasing charges.

 

That's it.

No doubt that this particular stakeholder included  some cyclists many of whom don't even f***ing live here.

Edited July 5, 2023 by CPR Dave

[first mate]

Ah, so a consultation that was not really a consultation as the biggest stakeholder of all- local residents- were not consulted en masse. 

This is all so slippery and anti democratic. 

[Rockets]

Ha ha...that's hilarious...they spoke to 1,025 people across the whole of Southwark. Young Advisers provided a lot of responses and they are 9 to 18 year olds....and students (many of whom don't live in Southwark) made up a big proportion of that 1,025 as well - 52% of all the street surveys conducted were by people who don't live in Southwark.

 

Is this a joke - is that what they are trying to claim was a consultation ? Do you think they have to had "notified" residents of this move and are trying to cover their backsides and have dug up this obscure document as "proof"?

 

The actual Movement Plan makes one mention of area-wide CPZs (Page 18) and states that, as part of the delivery plan, borough-wide parking controls would be introduced in 2025.

 

Moovart - was this response to an email you sent them about the CPZ consultation - if it was would you be happy to share it?

 

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Rockets

[Moovart]

I asked my local Councillor Andy Simmons if there had been a consultation regarding borough wide CPZ and when the decision had been made and he referred me to this document.

I certainly have no recollection of borough wide CPZ being raised at all in the past and it's the sort of thing one would notice.  So it would seem that there must have been very little publicity put out by Southwark over something that would obviously be controversial.

[first mate]

The Movement Plan document is cited below.

You had to be signed up to Southwark social media or a newsletter or on the New Southwark Plan mailing list to even know about this. How many of us even know of the existence of the latter? Who is on that mailing list? This all feels like a council/ political version of insider trading.

I don't care if other councils are up to the same shenanigans, it does not make it right. Quite how anyone can call themselves a socialist and resort to these undemocratic tactics is beyond me.

Essentially a massive change to local infrastructure, affecting the lives of everyone has been kept hidden from public scrutiny. How on earth can the council justify borough wide CPZ  based on a response of just over a thousand people with only 48% from within the borough? They know that last time round 65% of respondents from within ED alone were firmly against CPZ.
 

"We received a total of 1,025 responses through the online Consultation Hub, street surveys and working with the Young Advisors. We received 8 responses from our stakeholders.
The consultation was predominantly promoted via Southwark’s social media channels as well as the quarterly Southwark Life and email newsletter and the New Southwark Plan mailing list.
Surveys
An online survey was available on the council’s Consultation Hub. The survey was designed to uncover the personal experience of travelling in the borough and targeted at people who live, work and study in Southwark. We reached 689 people.
Street surveys where undertaken in January 2019 using a shortened version of the online survey. We reached 207 people in 7 locations (libraries and leisure centres)."

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by first mate

[Penguin68]

2 minutes ago, first mate said:

Street surveys where undertaken in January 2019 using a shortened version of the online survey. We reached 207 people in 7 locations (libraries and leisure centres)."

This is anything but a random or even representative sample - since it looks at people using local facilities during opening times it will not have sampled 'local' people who work outside of the area, indeed the 'clientele' at either type of sight cannot be said to be broadly representative. How many people who 'work' in Southwark, for instance, use Southwark libraries and leisure centres if they don't also live in Southwark? Though if they work in South Southwark (old Borough of Camberwell, i.e. around us) they are very likely to have travelled by car unless they live in a north: south axis, as east west travel is very poorly serviced by public transport. 

This is simply (as social survey style research is concerned) a complete travesty. To base any decisions on results from such a statistical disgrace is close to criminal. As a former (now retired) member of the Market Research Society this turns my stomach.

[CPR Dave]

jamesmcash

• Member
• •  330

• Author

 

 

jamesmcash

• Posted May 15, 2019

Hi MarkT

 

Just realised that the document you linked [referencing borough wide CPZ by 2025] was a consultation document and not the final version. The final version includes no reference to 2025 and instead talks about a general strategy to reduce car use by 13% by 2041.

 

Best wishes

James

 

Posted June 8, 2019

Dear all

...

Borough-wide CPZ

The Southwark Local Implementation Plan 3 states that the council wants to reduce trips made by car/motorbike to 13% by 2041. It further states that introducing a borough-wide CPZ would be a means of achieving this. Personally, I do not think that this is necessary. I think that the council's current policy - to be led by requests from local people - is the right one. But there are 22 years (and 5 local elections!) to discuss this before we reach that deadline.

 

Of course, there are definitely some people who would like to see this happen and want to see it sooner. I am not one of them though - and I will continue to argue in favour of existing policy

jamesmcash

Posted June 12, 2019

ed June 12, 2019

Hi all

 

Policy on CPZ implementation

I am afraid that I am unsure of how these different documents interact. But I do know for certain that the current policy in practice is the one I support: CPZs to only be implemented with the consent of residents. This will be confirmed, no doubt, when the East Dulwich CPZ is implemented in an area with majority support from residents.

[Earl Aelfheah]

22 hours ago, first mate said:

I also don't know if you did not see or just chose to ignore Pugwash' post above yours. There are very good reasons why sections of society rely on vehicle use and please don't, like some others on here, patronise by referring to elderly or disabled people you know who manage perfectly well on their e-bike. Great if they can but many cannot.

Controlled parking makes it much easier to do exactly that - control the allocation of parking. It's a better way of managing a scarce resource. I am very supportive of more disabled parking, wider pavements, removing obstructions so that buses can move faster and yes, segregated cycle lanes, for those who can't drive, but can use a modified e-bike. I don't see how a free for all helps the less mobile frankly.  

@Rockets  It's hilarious that you've been scouring my posts for perceived inconsistencies and could only a single moan from 13 years ago. I think you'll find that my posts have been pretty congruous, at least over the last decade 😉 .

In contrast, your repeated claims to support measures to reduce car use, improve active travel and road safety in principle, whilst never supporting any actual initiative in practice, doesn't seem very straight forward / coherent.. 

And for the record, the only reason I did a quick search of your previous posts, was that you claimed to have always supported cycling infrastructure, and to have opposed SUVs. It didn't align with my recollections. Correctly.

Edited July 6, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[heartblock]

I’m happy with CPZ, my only issue is not enough pay as you go/ point of use for tradesmen and casual parking. My friend picked me up to go to a funeral yesterday and I had to pay for a whole day guest park. Some provision for park by the hour and plumbers/electricians and drop off needs to be factored in more seamlessly.

[first mate]

EA how will controlled parking make it easier for disabled people? There is already enough space for them to park but you want to impose permits and charge them large sums of money so to do. Because they need to use their cars more frequently they will have to spend more. Additionally, some may require visits from carers, nurses, physios, support from family- all of which will incur further charges. On top of that they will incur the same charges as the rest of us for visiting trades, house maintenance etc.. Even if they have a Blue Badge ( and those are increasingly difficult to get) this council still want to charge them.

Everything turns on the notion that parking round here is scarce. Fact, it isn't. The council have tried every which way to create parking pressure, I grant you, but at this point, in this part of the borough people can still park.

Please, please try to understand that not every vulnerable or disabled person can use an e-bike.

7 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

 

jamesmcash

•  
• Member
• •  330

• Author

 

 

jamesmcash

• Posted May 15, 2019

Hi MarkT

 

Just realised that the document you linked [referencing borough wide CPZ by 2025] was a consultation document and not the final version. The final version includes no reference to 2025 and instead talks about a general strategy to reduce car use by 13% by 2041.

 

Best wishes

James

 

Posted June 8, 2019

Dear all

...

Borough-wide CPZ

The Southwark Local Implementation Plan 3 states that the council wants to reduce trips made by car/motorbike to 13% by 2041. It further states that introducing a borough-wide CPZ would be a means of achieving this. Personally, I do not think that this is necessary. I think that the council's current policy - to be led by requests from local people - is the right one. But there are 22 years (and 5 local elections!) to discuss this before we reach that deadline.

 

Of course, there are definitely some people who would like to see this happen and want to see it sooner. I am not one of them though - and I will continue to argue in favour of existing policy

 

jamesmcash

Posted June 12, 2019

ed June 12, 2019

Hi all

 

Policy on CPZ implementation

I am afraid that I am unsure of how these different documents interact. But I do know for certain that the current policy in practice is the one I support: CPZs to only be implemented with the consent of residents. This will be confirmed, no doubt, when the East Dulwich CPZ is implemented in an area with majority support from residents.

 

CPR thanks for getting all this. A great reminder of how slippery the council has been.

[Rockets]

Earl, what I have learnt over my time on this forum is that many on the pro-LTN side love to dish it out yet aren't so comfortable when it gets played back to them.

You searched for a few posts that did nothing to back up your accusation against me and tried to concoct a narrative to try to attack me (and you comtinue to do so) - which failed, and is failing, miserably. But we have seen this time and time again from many on the pro-LTN lobby - if you can't debate then go on the attack.

I have also learnt that you'll invariably find some posts that undermines their position. I have also learnt that hypocrisy is strong amongst many on the pro-LTN side.....

[CPR Dave]

First Mate, re "Everything turns on the notion that parking round here is scarce" It looks like that is going to be the tactic for the Goose Green councillors to avoid a charge of dishonesty being levelled at them.

Goose Green is not included, yet, in the consultations. So if the CPZs come in all over Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Village a lot of those residents, especially on boundary roads alongside Barry Road and Lordship Lane will start parking their cars in CPZ free Goose Green. 

At that point some people here will start asking for a CPZ and the councillors can keep their "promises".

[Rockets]

Transport is becoming a bit of a political hot potato in London. Keir Starmer refused to be drawn today on whether he supported Ulez expansion or not because the Labour candidate in the Uxbridge by-election wants it delayed and Sadiq Khan doesn't - its all going to get very interesting in the run up to the mayoral election next year.

 

BBC News - Uxbridge by-election: Keir Starmer won't say whether he backs ULEZ expansion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66124191

[malumbu]

I'm curious to why you raise the topic of the ULEZ expansion on this thread Rocks, unless you want to use it to do some more TfL and/or Labour bashing.  I don't think the ULEZ expansion has anything to do with Southwark.  Labour aren't going to stick their neck out, and just continue to allow the Tories to f things up.

Just to remind all, the concept of the ULEZ was introduced by Mayor Johnson as a bit of blue on blue, as his mate Dave wouldn't throw any more money to support Johnson's air quality aspirations.  Johnson talked about expanding this to the North and South Circs, and a possible zero emission zone in the central congestion charging area.  He now probably denies any of this.

Government were ordered by the courts to sort out air quality www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43141467  but continue to  put this in the hands of local authorities.  Government introduced the concept of charging and non-charging Clean Air Zones which confused people and have since clarified that Clean Air Zones are purely those measures that charge older polluting vehicles for access.  https://www.gov.uk/guidance/driving-in-a-clean-air-zone

The manufacturers have known that emission standards for diesel vehicles were not delivering, but were not compelled to do any thing more and just wait for the slow machinery in Brussels to get up to speed.  They scored a massive home goal by one of the most technically innovative companies, VW, tampering with vehicles that were going through official tests which had the knock on effect of Brussels getting their act together and introducing real world testing www.fleeteurope.com/fr/new-energies-taxation-and-legislation/europe/features/do-you-know-your-euro-6-your-6c-and-6d-temp?a=DQU04&t[0]=Energy&t[1]=Funding&curl=1.

But this really is the stuff for the Lounge.

 

[CPR Dave]

I suppose it's relevant because, just like these new CPZs, it's yet another example of Labour picking our pockets and pretending they are going to do something "Green" with the money.

[first mate]

1 hour ago, CPR Dave said:

First Mate, re "Everything turns on the notion that parking round here is scarce" It looks like that is going to be the tactic for the Goose Green councillors to avoid a charge of dishonesty being levelled at them.

Goose Green is not included, yet, in the consultations. So if the CPZs come in all over Dulwich Hill and Dulwich Village a lot of those residents, especially on boundary roads alongside Barry Road and Lordship Lane will start parking their cars in CPZ free Goose Green. 

At that point some people here will start asking for a CPZ and the councillors can keep their "promises".

@CPR Dave, yep, that is the MO, the CPZ domino or snowball effect. Get a few roads to say yes and then those next to those roads who take the displaced traffic ask for it and so on.

 

[alice]

That was also the MO of original LTNs. That those in adjoining, clogged streets would clamour for their share. 
it didn’t work. 

[northernmonkey]

5 hours ago, heartblock said:

I’m happy with CPZ, my only issue is not enough pay as you go/ point of use for tradesmen and casual parking. My friend picked me up to go to a funeral yesterday and I had to pay for a whole day guest park. Some provision for park by the hour and plumbers/electricians and drop off needs to be factored in more seamlessly.

just in case anyone is reading this and thinking ' oh i'll have to buy a day pass to cover parking for an hour' - this isn't true at all.  You can get a 1 hour, a 5 hour or an all day permit for visitors.  It may work out cheaper to do all day if they're picking up and dropping back and come in each time, but generally there are different options on visitor permits to facilitate just the scenario outlined above. 

The difficulty for people without a car or with OSP so no need for a permit is that they do need to register for a parking account to buy the online permits.  There are some pay by phone bays within zones too though meaning some short stay option don't need a parking account. 

[malumbu]

2 hours ago, CPR Dave said:

I suppose it's relevant because, just like these new CPZs, it's yet another example of Labour picking our pockets and pretending they are going to do something "Green" with the money.

The ULEZ was a Tory Mayor's concept.  Non Labour councils also have CPZs, parking restrictions and the like.  Try and see past your bias.